Stefan
08-10-2002, 02:17 AM
I definitely have a feeling that some of these films I am going to mention, I will be making some people upset, considering all these films have been big money makers at the box office. Remember this is my opinion, and like my brother says, "opinions are like assholes. Everyone has both." In other words it is just like my opinion and since I am nobody famous it will probably mean crap anyways to you people reading this. Especially when a friend I used to have and my dad have told me this (my opinion doesn't mean much) in the past year. Keep this in mind when I start harshly criticizing these following films.
****DISCLAIMER***** Since the past year I have realized how darn touchy people can be. If you say something even slightly wrong it will upset them. Sometimes people can misinterpret things and be upset even though you did not intentionally mean to piss them off. Like what happened to me a few days ago. ANywyas me bashing these films and ripping on the directors of these mentioned films does not mean that I think the people that watch these films are uncool, losers, with no taste with films in general. I am not telling you people if you have these tapes in your collection not to watch them. You people who have videos or dvds to these mentioned films can still keep them and still watch them if you want to and gives you pleasure. That is fine with me, your own business to, and perogative. I am not meaning to disrespect you people in anyway. Unlike some of the people listed what they thought is overated films, I am actually going into detail and explaining why I don't like these films. Let's get bashing of these way overated films on the way.
#1, on my list is "Jurassic Park: The Lost World." Why the hell did this film gross over 200 million domestically? Pretty much the second half of the film is one elaborate action sequence after another. There is no attemplt at plot development and characterization in the second half of the film. Even the characterization is underdeveloped and weak in the first half of the film. Just Like the film that followed a few months later after "Jurassic Park: Lost World" showed us, "Tommorow Never Dies," that no matter how great the action is, if there is no plot and characterization to take up some time between the action scenes, if all there is is pretty much just non stop action and stunt sequences, then the film becomes dull and the action redundant and pointless without a good script to back up the film. These two films I have just mentioned showed us that it is not great action and stunts that make a good film, but a good script with well developed plot and rounded characters with some snappy and interesting dialogue add into the film.
"Jurassic Park: The Lost World," also showed us that even great filmmakers like Steven Spielberg can fail in making quality films from time to time. This film also showed us that without a good script, Steven Spielberg's films don't amount to much without a good script. Despite having some slick scenes like when the people are trapped in a trailer that is slowly falling off the cliff still could not make a good film.
It's debatable but judging Spielbarg's work on this film alone, he could possibly be called a hack for this crapfest called "Jurassic Park: the Lost World." At least Spielberg unintentionally made himself look this way. A critic even said that this film was the worst film in twenty years that Spielberg has directed. No way! Even worse than that thin plot film of his also, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." Gee, you would have thought that Spielberg would have learned before he directed "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" that directing films with a thin plots with nothing but non stop action and stunts do not work. Especially after directing that stinker of a film "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom." A brilliant director like him should have had at least a little common sense to put some emphasis on the screenplay by 1997. I guess having an overinflated ego and getting lazy in the directors chair can really cloud your common sense as shown in "Jurassic Park: The Lost World."
Shit, as much as people love to rip on and harshly criticized the film, "Jeepers Creepers," especially on Ain't It Cool talkbacks, I did enjoy "Jeepers Creepers" more than "Jurassic Park: The Lost World." Sure you could say the plot really self destructed and the main characaters did stupid things that resulted in you not giving a rat's ass for the main characters, compounded with other flaws in the film like having an unkillable and undestruactible demon that offers us no hope for our main characters, but compared to "Jurassic Park: The Lost World," at least director and screenwriter Victor Salva did try and put some effort into the screenplay. "Jeepers Creepers" did throughout the entire film did have a decently developed plot. The characters were even more developed in "Jeepers Creepers." Which is more than I can say about "Jurassic Park: The Lost World." Look I know people all over my country United States were boycotting Salva's film, "Jeepers Creepers," due to a crime that he commited a long time ago that many people consider heinous and an unforgivable sin, not that I have a problem with this, given the nature of Salva's crime they can and do have a right to feel this way, but come on, if an inferior film like "Jurassic Park: The Lost World,' can gross 225 million domestically, nearly a hundred million alone in the first four days mainly becuase people thought that SPielberg always directed good quality films. So anyways if "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" can gross so much why couldn't "Jeepers Creepers" gross at least twice as much as it did at the box office. Seriously, if the average movie audience didn't know about Spielberg's other great films, and just knew about "Jurassic Park: THe Lost World," Spielberg would have made Salva look like a competent and skilled director. At least Salva gave us a couple of nice boo scares. Speaking of Salva how in some of his films he likes to have boys and men nude in varying degrees, (young boy gives butt shot and adolescent in his underwear in "Clownhouse," The title character in "Powder" has a scene of being completely naked, and in "Jeepers Creepers" Darry goes without a shirt) I wonder if Salva wasn't gay would Gina Philips be wearing a miniskirt or less than that and being in forms of nudity that my heteroself could get excited about and approve. Salva's direction in "Jeepers Creepers" managed to pull off a good fake scare on me. That really says something about that coming from me, considering that I find most fake scares repetitive and just plain annoying. Most definitley overused in "Haloween: 20 Years Later," which got on my nerves added in with some teenagers kept making comments out loud thinking they could be as funny and cool as the guys from "Mystery Science Theater 3000." In actuallity the viewing guys from Mystery Science Theater 3000 were seldom funny and cool anyways.
I also thought "Deep Blue Sea" was a better film than "Jurassic Park: The Lost World," despite following the same formula of "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" with also was pretty much non stop action in the second half. A positive thing I can say about "Deep Blue Sea," despite being a "Jaws" Ripoff, at least this film did have some bite to it. You really could not predict who was gonna live and who was going to get it. There are not many horror films or science fiction/horror film hybrids that have that benefit of the movie audience not being able to predict who will be killed and who lives. Heck, I was somewhat surprised,(****MAJOR SPOILER****) when Samuel Jackson got eaten halfway through the film. A big surprise considering the majority of the movie audience was going to see Samuel L. Jackson as the big name actor drawing to bring in people to see this film. "Deep Blue Sea" also had a few good moments of scares which that crapfest "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" could'nt offer us. Why couldn't "Deep Blue Sea" do halfway as good as "Jurassic Park: THe Lost World" did. I mean unlike the director of "Jeepers Creepers," the director of "Deep Blue Sea," Renny Harlin does have a clean background and past. My only conclusion to this: fans of great filmakers like Spielberg and George Lucas will come out in the millions to support such so called great filmakers films regardless of whether they are good films or not.
2."The Fast and the Furious." How the hell is it a film like "The Fast And the Furious" can ripoff so many plot and character elements of a superior film like "Point Break." Like the undercover cop in "The Fast in the Furious" being naive and wet behind the years just like Johnny Utah in "Point Break." Or Dominoc like Bodhi from "Point Break" can not stand to be arrested again. Compared to the "Fast And the Furious," "Point Break" had better action scenes, a good twist (****MAJOR SPOILER**** where Johnny Utah is forced to rob a bank with the bad guys with his face exposed and was forced into it by Bodhi taking advantage of Johnny Utah's care for his Bodhi's ex-girlfriend), better acting, well rounded and developed characters (especially the asshole F.B.I. boss who was always pissed and dissatisfied with Utah and Gary Busey's characters' work), better script with intriguing dialogue, characters I care about (***Major Spoiler*** the first time I saw this film, I was quite sad to see Gary Busey get killed, even though he didn't dress that well, I guess that the fact he stuck for Utah after Utah was involved in the robbery by standing up to the asshole F.B.I. boss and got him released made me admire Gary Busey's character, especially when Busey ripped on the asshole boss after being called a loser) and still "Point Break" didn't even gross 50 million at the domestic box office. While "The Fast and the Furious" on the otherhand grossed nearly as much as "Point Break's" whole total in it's first weekend of release.
Let's see what "The Fast and the Furious" offered me: despite being written by three people (took only one to write "Point Break" anyways) the script was shitty with dull dialogue, actors who were pretty weak at acting, no major cool twists, turns, or surpirses (unlike "Point Break" that offered me this); the fine chiks didn't even appeal to me. Not that I am racist, just simply not my type of woman. I understand that seeing these attractive ladies in Dominoc's gang in dresses, skirts, or miniskirts is asking too much and would not fit in with the lifestyle that these ladies lead and be out of character too of course, but could we have at least seen these two ladies in skin tight leather pants every now and then and not freaking worn out and overused jeans. I mean come on people, if I want to look at women in jeans all day, I just need to go out in public. No need to look at attractive ladies wearing jeans all the time in Dominoc's gang on the big screen. Couldn't the big screen have offered me something different for women's fashion in this film on the nice looking ladies. I mean jeans have been around for at least fifty years now.
I knew that halfway watching the film that this film was going into a dull downward direction. The only reason I stayed was becuase of my local critic had given the film a B-. I trust this local critic too becuase he is usually on target with the films he reviews. Heck, this critic sometimes underrates films. By the time I was done watching this shitty film, I had wished I had followed my own judgement by walking out halfway through the film and asking for my money back before the time limit for asking for movie refuds had expired. Being a pessimist that I am, more than a few people have let me known this too, I tried to stay positive about the outcome of this film thinking it might have a good conclusion and climax in this film. Seems I was not rewarded at all for trying to be optimistic and hopeful that day. All I have to say is damn that critic Henry Shaheen for misleading me. Especially when he is usually on target with many of the films he reviews. After seeing this film, I realized the critic I just mentioned was probably bribed by the movie studio into writing a favorable a review in the Show section. I agree totally with what CriticalBill6966 had to say in vulgarly and wittingly calling this film,"THe Fast and the Suckass" blow donkey balls. My thoughts exactly CriticalBill6966.
The only things that worked for "The Fast and the Suckass" blow donkeyballs, was the gimmicks of an attractive all around cast for both males and females, and the racing scenes of course. Look I am no racing fan and no offense intended to hard core street racing fans, but even the racing scenes blowed donkeyballs in the film. Except for the first race, which was only halfway interesting, there was no other race directed with pizzazz or with flair and style. Pretty much all the racing scenes there was no tension and I did not get excited for any other racing scenes. I was not even in suspense when I knew that the guy with attention defficit disorder was going to lose his car in the race. My friend who is into fast cars was saying how the cars sucked, contained four cylinders, and were all Japenese cars. Not that my friend is predjudice. He just feels that a good old fahsioned six cylinder american car can beat the crap out of the four cylinder japenese cars in the film. So I even got my friend who is into racing who agrees with me that the racing sucked this film. To close my views on this overated film, could some big fan of this film please tell me and explain what was so damn cool and special about "The Fast and the Furious?" Still puzzles my mind that this film ripped off a superior made film and ended up making more than three times the money at the box office that "Point Break" did guranteeing a most likely shitty and completly worthless sequel. I am serious, I am still trying to figure what was so dam cool and assume about this film that should be vulgraly entitiled, "The Fast and the Furious" blows donkeyballs.
3."Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me." Once again could some big fan of this film tell me why this film should be so cool and deserve to gross over 200 million dollars? Esecially when better films that are more constantly funny like the first two "Naked Guns" and "Hot Shots" only end up grossing somewhere in the seventies. Once agian I was misled by my local "trustworthy" critic Henry Shaheen (before I knew him better) who gave this film an A-. I walked in with high expectations and was sorely disapointed by the end of the film.
Except for when Dr. Evil and his son were on the Jerry Springer show and got into a fight with other bad guys on the show, there was not another memorable scene that made me laugh. It should be noted that itis not like I am notinto this kind of crude and raunchy humor. When there used to be new episodes of Married With Children on Fox, I would be watching this show religiously on Suday nights at 9:00 P.M.
Let's look at this film that tried to have big highlights (from my point of view lowlights), wow Austin drinks liquified shit thinking it is coffee...not! From an outside perspective looking at a tent iluminated in the inside it looks like Austin is buttfucking his female parter. How hilarious..NOT! I admit this film could have made me laughed my ass off and make me roar with laughter if I had taken some laughing ass or used a mind altering substance like marijuana before I saw this film.
My theory why people love this vastly overrated film is becuase most of the people who saw this were possibly in grades five to eight. This is about the time that people start cracking jokes about sex and each other sex's private parts. It seems no matter at this age of how stupid or good the joke his, people in general at this age would laugh at these kind of jokes. I,myself admit I was very guilty of laughing at raunchy sex jokes too. Heck, I still crack up when I remember two kids arguing about who has a bigger penis. I do admit "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged" me could have made me laugh if I was still somwhere between the ages of eleven to fourteen. So once again, could a big fan please explain what was so damn funny, about "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me?"
In case you missed it by now, I was totally misled by my former local newspaper movie critic again. At the risk of being accused of libel (even if what I say is most likely true) I think I should warn and tell people that I am pretty sure that Henry Shaheen has been bribed by the movie studios, at least a few times, when he writes favorable reviews for films like this one being talked about now, "The Fast And the Furious," and "Payback" (the one with Mel Gibson in it). Even though most of the time he is right on and underates films occasionaly. That fact that crappy films get favorable films by him indicates he has been bribed by the movie studios of the films he gives favorable reviews too. I am willing to bet money that Henry Shaheen is willing to sacrifice his integrety in his reviews for a fancy and expensive dinner or a nice, comfortable, and enjoyable night's stay in a pricey hotel. My advice to you people is this: don't take his word on films that he gives good reviews on. If other top nitpicky and objective minded critics don't like the film that Henry Shaheen has given a favorable review too, go with them any day of the week over Shaheen. Shaheen no longer writes reviews in my hugely populated county of Orange. So if he has become your local newspaper critic, be wary of his favorable reviews. Don't be misled like I was. Remember you have been warned. Hopefully people won't be ripped off by seeing films they think has gotten a "favorable" review by this guy. If anyone tries to snitch on me for libel about this guy like this message board member did to me last year, I have two good defenses: I made it look my opinion and I am warning the public under public interest where libel is excused and protected by the courts.
4. "Scream. 1996" Yep the one by Wes Craven and not the old early eighties direct to video one of the same name. This "Scream" that came out was advertised as hip, clever, and fresh. I am sorry, after my first veiwing I did not see any of those adjectives to be found anywhere in the film. When they tried to be witty, it was something like Sydney saying on the phone to the killer about scary films, "What's the point? They are all the same. Some stupid killer stalking a big breasted woman who can't act and being chased up the stairs when she should be leaving the house. They are insulting." Looking in retrospect now, I must confess that this line Sydney said to the killer does make me snicker a little because of the stupidity of the line. Make me snicker as in saying, "Is that the best witty line that Kevin Williamson could come up with right there?"
While many hardcore horror fans detest this film, I however sit on the fence and neither like or hate it. Just thought the film was o.k. in other words. I am not going to want every film copy made of "Scream" to be destroyed like Parilese Monster does. Anyways while, I did not hate "Scream," I still thought this film to be very overrated and did not deserve to earn 130 million dollars at the box office last time I heard. Call me whacked if you want but I did enjoy, "Scream 3." Mainly because of the nice, intriguing mystery plot Ehren Krueger had written into the film.
5."Air Force One." It really does irk me that people say how predictable "Passenger 57" was and then say, go out and contribute to a film like "Air Force One" that ends up grossing up to 270 million something when it is inferior in a few things. There was not anything that was really unpredictable about this film, no suspense, except for the cool action sequence that showed off Air Force One automatic defensive systmes that leads to a cool fight, the action pretty much sucked the big one in this film. At least "Passenger 57" had great action, a little bit of suspense, and better written dialogue at times.
Let's compare in these following fields how these two films did in these two areas on a similar plot of a plane being taken over by terrorists. Snappy or witty written dialogue. "Passenger 57:" Snipe's character John Cutter: "Charlie, did your father ever tell you, never to send a boy to do a man's job?" Cutter continues,"Charlie do you play roulette?" Rane response,"On occassion." Cutters response to that,"Well, here's a bit of advice. Always bet on black." If you don't understand what Cutter means that Cutter was referring to himself (who happened to be black of course) and that he was going to win in this terrorist situation. In "Air Force One" the closest thing we had to a one liner was the president saying in a tough guy voice, "Get off my plane." Let's move on to the bad guys in these two films. Charles Rane from "Passenger 57," portrayed very well an emotionless, cold, sinister person who would take anybody's life that would either defy him or take a hostages life to gain an advantage. When an F.B.I. agent tells Rane that he killed two good agents that were friends of the F.B.I. agent that was talking to Rane. Rane repies, portarying his cold, and sociopathic side well, "How nice of you to tell me that. I do love hearing about the lives of people I have touched." Rane was so intimidating by the way he would take somebody's life in a second without even thinking about it. Rane in one memorable scene really knew how to push Cutter's buttons well. Best scene of this movie in my opinion. The main villian in "Air Force One," all he could do was make big demands for the release of his fellow terrorist in prison, and spout out an insight about politcs. The insight observing how Americans would kill a few thousand arabs just to keep gas down five cents a gallon. Only time the dialogue got good for me. This head terrorist in my opinion without his big machine gun, was a big pussy in this film compared to Rane. He did not generate any suspense on me. Nor did the head terrorist (Gary Oldman) intimidate me in the slightest.
The action scenes of both films, mainly the climax. In "Passenger 57" we had Snipes who was without a gun for almost the entire film, was forced to rely on his kickboxing skills througout the film. Like taking a guy out who was slashing at Cutter with a knife. On the fairgrounds, Cutter did his own personal version and imitation of Jackie Chan with his prowness and evasion when he didn't have a gun. Whoever thought a little kiddie merrry-go-round with horses could be so thrilling and exciting with music complementing the scene, as Cutter is being persued by Rane who happens to have a gun. The climax of this film was the best part as Cutter fights Rane with an airplane door coming off to increase the tension of the action sequence. It was such a thrill as Cutter was doing some kicks that demonstrated that he had grace, power, and kicked effortlessly. Cutter also showed some great balance doing back kicks from airplane seats(in real life that would not be an easy feat I think) during the climatic fight with Rane. The cool part was Rane could take some serious shots. Including shots to the groin a couple of times. I guess Rane's Dad physically abused him good for Rane to take such shots and strikes from Cutter. Rane even managed to strangle Cutter for a while with the plastic tubes from the airmasks that come down during an airplane emergency with Rane looking invulverable at times from Cutter's hits. The only good action scene during "Air Force One," was after Mr. President ordered a missile to be fired at Air Force One, taking advantage of the plane's automatic avoidance system, so Mr. President could get out of being held at gunpoint in a terrorist. The climax of this film is so unrememorable and the action was so so during the climax, that it does not deserve to be described in detail as the climax of "Passenger 57." In "Air Force One," the climax wasn't anything to get too excited about, and we at best get that one decent liner from Harrison Ford saying so macho and tough, "Get off my plane."
After comapring these two films could somebody please tell me why "Air Force One" deserved to earn so much money at the box office while "Passenger 57" doesn't even gross fifty million at the box office? My best theory is that maybe my brother was right. People will really pay to see big name actors and enjoy seeing good acting performances even though the script wasn't all there in "Air Force One." I, myself would rather see a good script worked first and then you try and hire good actors second. I don't know about most people but I am perfectly content with a good screenplay and ranging from weak to decent acting. After all that is why I enjoy a few good action films that Keanu Reeves happens to be in. We all know that Keanu Reeves is not the best actor right? My local theatre had a screen advertisement saying that their product had more acitng ability than Keanu Reeves. I can prouidly brag that I do not go to movies because some big name actor or actress is in it. I go because I hear that the film is a good film matched with a good screenplay. I do not get suckered in by having to see the big name actor (insert whatever name you like, I don't see films anymore becuase big name actor happens to be in this film). The only big name actor I used to go see because he was in them was Arnold Shwartzenegger, but I stopped going to see his films in the movie theater back in 1996 because "Eraser" was just o.k. I stand by my conviction! I no longer get suckered in to see a film becuase big name actor or actress happens to be in it.
6. "Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace." The way this piece of turd was written it should have been called "The Phantom Script." Where the hell was the screenplay in this film? I mean the dialogue was so weak. Except for the Darh Mual flashing some cool kicks with his eight foot long light saber used more like a bo staff, he did not impress me much as a vile villian. Was this film a two plus hour long advertisement of special effects I wonder? I mean the storyline was so weak. I did not warm up and connect with the characters like in the Old trilogy. It truly did seem like a two hour plus advertisement used to promote Lucas's special effects company. I think this ploy was used so movie studios will employ Lucas's special effects company and ask for big bucks from the studio for his special effects company services. Oh I see how this works now.
Lucas was such a fool for thinking he still could write a film after sixteen years. I mean many screenwriters' careers have come and gone since 1983 to 1989. Shane Black of Leathel Weapon fame is writing no more. The main screenwriters behind the success of "Alien" and "The Warriors" are no longer having susscessfull writing careers. Steven De Souza who wrote "48 hours" and "Die Hard" has become a has been now. Most notably after writing that Van Damme film "Knockoff." Doug Richardson's screenwriting career fizzled out after just six years. His brief career flourished from 1990 to 1996. His only highpoint was the main screenwriter for "Die Hard 2: Die Harder." My point is Lucas should have know better than to write a film after sixteen years when he made "The Phantom Menace." Lucas should have had some common sense, or at least good judgment, that he couldn't write a film in this day and age. Wake up call to Lucas! Movie scripts have gotten a lot harder to write within a span of sixteen years. But like Speilberg when he directed "Jurassic Park: The Lost World," lucas had a big ego and was wealthy and I am pretty sure that this clouded his good judgement.It is even reported that Lucas has somewhere between two to three billion in his bank. Therefore, there is no fucking excuse whatsoever that this egotistical person who thinks he is a god can't hire s good screenwriter for a fee of five to eight million. Heck if Lucas is a smart businessman, he can say paying these screenwriters so much could be a tax writeoff. I will accept this as a tax writeoof as long as the money is going to good use. Remember folks, despite screenwriters contributing so greatly to a film, they do not get paid anywhere near as close as a big time director and actor does.
I maybe into comic books, occasionally read children books, and still an avid video game player at my age, but folks does it really say something that I found this heaping piece of turd film, "The Phantom Menace" to be too childish for even my tastes? Jar Jar Binks was a complete patheitc joke in a terrible way. Was it me, or did Jar Jar Binks in the begginnig move a lot like Steve Urkel in his walk. Jar Jar Binks thinking he is cool but in reality a total dofus. Jar Jar Binks had an annoyihg voice too that managed to even annoy me. I am a pretty tolerant person too by the way. If somebody or something annoys me it is quite an accomplishment. He was in the film way too damn long. All this talk about Jedis made me want to do my own Jedi mindtrick. Like concentrating and putting Jar Jar Binks on fire, or at least dematerializing. How about a white cane with a big curved handle would yank him by his neck or an ankle and be pulled off the screen. But fortunately I may be negative but I do live in the real world, I briefly forgot about the Jedi mindtricks and realized I was cursed by some bastard named Lucas who was catering to little kids with his childish humor. With Lucas's attempt at comedy through the manners and talk of Jar Jar Binks, I have to ask myself was Lucas drunk or on some mind altering substance when he was directing scenes with Jar Jar Binks. if Lucas wasn't his taste and style in comedy really stinks and sucks the big one.
Was anybody who had seen the old trilogy really in suspense when the pod race was going on? I knew and predicted that young Annakin was going to win as soon as I saw that he started his pod with ease. There was no tension throughout the rest of the race and he won it with relative ease. Annaking caught up and won it with relative ease. If I was Lucas I would have made the competitors more vicious in the race like firing guns at Anakin and ramming into his pod. I knew Lucas has it somewhere in him to show this vicious side of the competitors. After Annakin started his pod up after stalliing there was no suspense or excitement for me whatsoever. After all if Anakin lost it would have disupted the whole narrative flow of the movie and the whole Star Wars series. Annaking wouldn't have become a Jedi. If he wasn't a Jedi then the other Jedis wouldn't eventually be killed. Also if Annaking wasn't a Jedi there would be no Luke and Leah around. If Luke and Leah were around then there would be no Old trilogy. So if Annakin lost the race he would remain a slave and there would have been no more movie or more series. Shame on you old timers if you have seen the old trilogy and don't recall Obi Won Kenobi saying how good young Annaking was at pod racing. If you are familair with the old trilogy, you should have been able to predict like myself (who isn't too good at predicting things in movies) that Anakin was goona win it as soon as he started his pod at full speed.
As a screensriter Lucas I think purposely kept Darth Maul mute most likely becuase Lucas did not know how to write his character. Do you know that Lucas isn't even sorry for making this piece of turd and remains unapologetic about it to this day. Shows that Lucas is like horror producers cranking out pointless and unneccessary sequels to horror franchises that should be retired but aren't. in this aspect. He doesn't care if some people and critics hate the film, just as long as he makes a ton of money like the horror producers who don't care what the general movie audience and major critics think. Lucas cares about one thing only like horror producers, the bottom line is making money without putting any real quality into the film. All I know is Lucas has commited an unforgivable sin! For not regretting the heaping piece of turd know as "The Phantom Menace," somebody should pour lighter fluid on his beard and light it on fire for all the many fans who were let down by this film.
Seriously this film is so bad that the rights for this film could be purchased by "Mystery Science Theater 3000," and I could write a screenplay for the guys watching the film for a fee of ten thousand dollars. I could make fun of the script and directing style. The lousy and pathetic joke that wouldn't die known as Jar Jar Binks. How when Anakin was a slave how he let himself be intimidated by a fat guy who could only move with his wings. Why the heck couldn't young aspiring Jedi Annaking grow half a brain by ripping off his slave owners wings? Without the slave owners wings, Annakin could easily run away with his mom and he could easily find a new location. I laugh that Annakin was such a slave to a guy who could only move with his wings and nothing else. Why couldn't it be so simple for Annakin to do this? Also those robots looked so dorky looking with their cartoonish helmets. I am a crappy artist but I could draw a more menacing looking head on these robots in thirty seconds than what Lucas could come up with for the next few months before the filming of this film. I was so scared of robots that take away their guns and you could push these robots to the floor and they could shatter. The heads of these robots crack me up too while we still are on the subject of this robots.
Am I the only person on this forum who sees Lucas for what he truly is. A sharlton (for you people out there this means a fake, or pretender). A sharlton as in being a sharlton of a good and competent filmmaker, contrary to what Lucas thinks. A sharlton who isn't shit without his gimmicks of special effects, special costumes, and special makeups. Lucas is a supporter, and believewr, and practicer of films nowadays with a this flash and fluff containing a big sense of syle and not much on substance, the scrit in particular. I willing to bet a few hundred dollars that if Lucas was barred from special effects, special costumes, and special make up to use in films, Lucas's films would flop big time. If Lucas was barred from these things and kept making films like these I am pretty sure he would be in the directing hall of shame up there with Roman Polanski. Maybe Lucas would eventually top Polanski as the movie industry's biggest has been. I would like to look forward to that.
Sometimes I wish Lucas would stick to special effects where he is overpaid too. I also wish sometimes that people would stop supporting his crappy films telling Lucas it is o.k. to make shitty films. All I know is I have never on my job or in my life been able to get away with being a little lazy. I didn't do little things when I moved out of my place and I got it taken out of my deposit. I do a sloppy job of parking and I got a ticket for it. Even little things on my job like putting a sticker on thirty-five degrees wrong or taping boxes wrong I get chewed out for. So why the hell does this mother fucker Lucas get filthy rich off a half assed job when I can't get away with being a little lazy? Wish I could be very wealthy on a product or film I did a half assed job like the fucking bastard Lucas.
Due to the fact that people keep supporting Lucas films, has contributed to an undeserving ego that has been inflated a few thousand times over and surrounded by a plexi glass like bubble that only begins to crack after a few thousand pounds of pressure. To show you that Lucas is not bothered by what other people think of his recent efforts nowadays. I could punch him ten times and it still wouldn't dent his ego one bit. All I know is getting very wealthy after two half assed job films tells Lucas something like this, "He, He, He.... Even though top major critics hate my films, I can still get away with weak scripts and not make quality films as long as I rely on my gimmicks of special effects, special costumes, and special make up, and still people will love and be so dedicated to my films. ha, ha, ha, ha." All I know is people don't bitch too much if the next episode sucks. After all you still went out and supported his last two films that weren't even high quality films.
7.Disney's "Pocohuntas." How is it a film that perverts (meaning in the sense to turn away from the truth) history that wasn't even written that well and still get rated three stars by nitpicky and objectiveminded critics and gross over 300 million dollars. How is it that people that aren't even paid to be top critcs for newpapers, magazines, and web sites could see how lazy, choppy, and lacking in plot this film was and yet some professional, nitpicky and objective minded critics rate this film rate stars. Especially when professional movie critics care about the plot and the script being the mostimportant aspect of the film than the average film audience.
I can not beleive this film grossed so much domestically and nobody saw that the director, screenwriters, and possibly a producer or more had anti-american attitudes. It seems that the only people who see this are my dad and me. I am even amazed that intelligent people like my brother and my brother-in-law can't see the antimaerican attitude that the makers of this film had. If you look closely it had the attitude by the makers, "heheheheh, I really don't like this country. I don't like to take pride in my country. So I have no problem showing how my forefathers were sinful and wicked and took the land the way of the Indians." I mean come on people just becuase your family had somebody bad in your family or in history, wouldn't you take pride in your family and country and not talk about it. Much less exploit it on the big screen? I might have an ugly side in my family, but I am not willfully going to talk about it. Once again, I stand by my convictions. The director and screenwirters did not show any pride in blatanly showing this perversion of history where the white men were total bad guys and the indians they encountered were all goody goody and innocent. Heck, The screenwriters and the director certainly went out their way to make my english forefathers total assholes and unlikeable people even though I have not come across any history that says our forefathers had that bad of personalities. The white men were the people that murdered and not the indians who did nothing in the film.
All I know is if we got an objective and fair history reading, unlike this film, the indians the white men encountered in this film, would have been as quarrelsome and belligerent as the white men. The indians used in this film would have been fighting with other tribes, being just as petty and bad as the white men. The fact that the director and screenwriters of this film are white seems to suggest further that these people have some anti-american attitudes. Mel Gibson, while I don't think he is an antiamerican, has starred in a few films that have made the english the bad guys. Makes me wonder sometimes if Mel Gibson doesn't like the english. All I know this film seems quite blasphemic to my good country's name and unjustly besmirches my forefathers.
By the way folks I am not showing any favortism whatsoever to the white men. I do not have any blood ancesters that had been involved in the actual historical event with Captain John Smith. For the record, my ancesters on both sides of my family only immigrated to america at the end of the nineteenth century (dad's side). My moms side did not come over to this country until early twentieth century. I also do not have any english in my blood. Just speak the language fluently. If you want to get technical, you can call me biracial. If you want to get more technical I do have a quarter of indian blood. I am just being fair and objective about what I find wrong with this film. I am upset becuase I am very proud of this country and love to be here as any patriotic proud,loving, and grateful american should be.
Other flaws including the script, is how Captain John Smith looked like such a stud when he reality a picture shows how in real life he wasn't anything close to a stud wearing a red beard. I seriously doubt Pocahontas herself looked anthing like a pin up model in those days. Especially in reality she was only eleven. All I know this blasphemic film to my proud country deserved to have a good script if you are going to disrespect your country that gave you so many rights and freedomss. If you have the intention to unjustly besmirch your american forefathers at least write a good script.
I can excuse some things like Pocahontas being 17. I know and understand that many americans would be outraged if Pocahonas was actually eleven at the time in the film. I know that Disney does not want to promote pedophilia. SO I am cool with that. I do not mind that they changed history itself. All I know is if I complained and got upset over every single film that did not faithfully follow history and fictional noves, I would be crying for at least two years strait. I could nitpick for example how the only things that were similar with the Bond film and book, "Live and Let Die," was the main bady guy was Mr.Big, had a henchman named Teehee, and used voodoo as their cover and practiced it. Other then these similarites the plots of the book and the film are totally different as night and day. So based on my principles of fairness (I was born under my Libra sign who abhors unjust things) it would be unfair to single "Pocahontas" out and let those other films slide for not folowing history and fictional books faithfully. So I will let the fact that history was changed somewhat under artistic liscence. Besides kids should not believe what they see in movies like movies are teaching them the Gospel. There are so many factual and scientific facts wrong in film. Contrary to what he heard and saw in "Die Hard 2: Die Harder," A Gloc 7 was made in Austria and not in Germany. You can not ignite fuel like that quickly with a lighter in frozen conditions, contrary when
Bruce Willis put a lighter to the trailing fuel to the bad guys plane at the end of this film.
However what I can not excuse is is perverting history to make our forefathers look totally wrong and the indians the total innocent victims, When history shows us that both sides were bad. If these screenwriters, director, a producer to a few don't like this country, why the hell don't they leave then? I mean our country does give us such freedoms as freedom of speecn, right to fair trial as being convicted of crimes you committed and not being punished on what others committed. Let's not forget such very lax censorship on all our entertainment. We have porno films, gory video games, and many PG-13 films that could be rated R and are borderline between these ratings. Not that i have a problem with this. So if these ungrateful americans shuld leave if they hate this country that much and possibly trade it to some immigrants from Mexico and South america that are just coming to better their lives and are decent people.
8."Goldeneye." I certainly do love special emphesis on plot in this films, however this film put so much emphesis on plot they forgot about pacing being a neccessity in action films and that made this film a bore for a good hour. After a good opening sequence with Bond escaping from a chemical weapons facility, I wasn't scared though when it looked like Bond might have trouble riding the jet however, the next hour nothing too exciting happened. The dialogue while interesting at times (especially to learn about English history) was still not enough to hold my interest. A good final fight was the only thing to look forward to for the next hour and a half and that is pretty much it. For once an action film I did not agree with nitpicky and objective minded critics.
8. "Tomorow Never Dies," while it did good action opening sequence. I was briefly held in suspense (nowadays not an easy feat to accomplish) how Bond might get out of the jam with nucleur weapons coming after him where he was. The first hour was enjoyable. However like "Armageddon," film flaws, both films had good first hours and then so so second halfs relying too much on action to carry the movie. Back to "Tomorrow Never Dies," I was getting bored at Elliot's party. I actually was wishing for some action to happen. I guess when I was making my wish, I should have thought of "Wishmaster" that I had seen a couple months before this film, mainly Wishmaster himself saying, "Be careful what you wish for." It was cool in "Tomorow Never Dies" when Bond fought off some baddies and the next fifteen minutes made it seem this film was destined to be a Bond classic. Funny how things changed in the next half hour.
Nitpicking here too much but it seems like the director and screenwriters do not know about any events in that has happened in Bond's past films. For example when Paris asks Bond if he has ever lost anyone close to him, Bond does not mention Tracy that he lost in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Even the producers do not seem to keep track what has been going on in the past bad films. I mean if comic book editors can keep track of what has happened in a hero's life what villians are up to and what has happened in fights between the hero and the villians for a least a few hundred issues, I expect the producers, directors, and screenwriters of Bond films to be able to keep up with what has happened in previous Bond films. Especially when not even two dozen Bond films have been made yet.
The second half sucked, much like "Jurassic Park: THe Lost World," the second half was totally reliant on action and extremly little was given to plot and characterization. Even though the action in this film was the best it has been in twenty years of Bond film, withouut a good script to add in the action did wear off becoming repetitive and dull. This film proved that it is not good action and dangerous stunts that make a film, but a good script with plot and characterization.
For the first hour, while I did briefly get bored at Carver's party, this film did look and feel like a classic Bond film. Just seemed my wish screwed things up with the nonstop action. A pity too. This film had potential to be a kickass Bond film. Possibly could have been the best one since "Octopussy." But no, a director got lazy in his chair and did not do his task of being the last and official superviser of the script. I am not sure how much I can blame Bruce Fierstein. I know he had to write during shooting. Don't know whether if he was rushed, got lazy, or was unmotivated in writing this lazy script in the second half. All I know is if I see another Bond film like this in a theater I go to with the plot being so thin in the second half, I will have to fight every urge in me to throw food and drink at the movie screen. Especially if I hear this is illegal.
9."The World is Not Enough." While it did have a nice complex plot, the twist in the film really is not anything new in a Bond film. Especiall when it was done not so long ago in "For Your Eyes Only" and "The Living Daylights." (******MAJOR SPOILER**** you know where Bond is thinking he is guarding someone or working with someone who he thinks is a friend or ally turns out to be the main villian later in the film.) Anyways, unlike many people that thought the action sucked. I enjoyed it for the most part. It was ironic that everyone seemed to like the boat chase along THames river except me. Let's face one thing: Bruce Fierstein may write good one liners and occasional snappy dialogue at timees, but he fails in the rest of the script. Like developing good characters and plot development. This film had the right pacing for once mixed in with with good mix of plot and action. The only that brought this film down was weak dialogue. It is sadder when I at times know how to write the dialogue better than Bruce Fierstein. Proves that no matter how good the music is, no matter how good the action is, how good the acting can be, how good the special effects and makeup can be, and how good the direction can be, None of this stuff combined amounts to much without a good screenplay with good dialogue and interesting characters.
10. "Die Hard With a Vengenace." This film grossed over a hundred million with a plot that weant like this: Mad Bomber blows up an area. Demands that cop Mclane goes to Harlan wearing a sign that says a derogatory name against black people. As Mclane is about to get killed, he gets saved by black racist named Zues. As much as Zues hates white people in particular, he still can't stand to see an innocent person get killed for some reason, despite the different color of Mcclane's skin. So mad bomber angry at Zues for saving McClane forces the two to work together solving his riddles and traps. Eventually McClane discovers a plot by mad bombers group, the Aryan Nation to steal the gold. Chase pursues that ends up in Canada of all places and this is pretty much the plot.
It became clear to me that this rather so so plot in this film was running out of gas halfway throughout the film. It was also made clear to me that the director and the studio were runnning out of ideas with the plot summary I have just summarized. There is not one action sequence that sticks out in my mind. No memorable fight or shooting sequence. The only cool stunt was spinning the car in reverse to shoot some bad guys which lasted very briefly. Considering this film was directed by John McIternian, who brought us the first "Die Hard" and "Predator," well known and good action films, "Die Hard With A Vengeance" was a big letdown in the action aspect of the film. Good Chemistry between Samuel Jackson and Bruce Willis and some funny lines from Jackson's character was not enough to satisfy me in enjoying this film.
I did say script was the most important thing to me. However script does not make the whole entire film. You do need some nicely directed action scenes thrown in to make a good action film. Script however is 85% percen of the film in action films. Direction of action sequences is ten percent. Followed by five percent acting and special effects. This is my criteria for watching action films.
As you can see acting is not high on my priority in watching a film. Just as long as the actors can decently act. After all, I still enjoyed the "warriors" even though there were some bad actors that were in there. This film did prove an early statement by saying who says you need big name actors to make a good film.
Next on the list with dishonarble mention goes to "Pearl Harbor." I think it is amusing how people say this film sucks and yet this film grossed a hundred million. Seems ever since scripts have been harder to come by since 1995, movies (action ones in particular) are not as good as they used to be. Seems that if you put in gimmicks like special effects everyone will be satisfied and flock in droves to see it. Not to rip on and criticize too badly, but the average movie audience does seem easier to please and satisfy then they were ten years ago. The average movie audience will come to see any film that is spanking brand new regardless of whether it is good or not. That is how movie studios make their money so quickly based on an article I read in the Show section. The way studios will pay for their new films to be played on so many thousands of screens across the country, knowing they will make a lot the first week and significant drops in sales doesn't matter since so many people showed up the first week. Good strategy by the studios on ways to get money back quickly through this method. Based on the box office grosses of theses overated films I just mentioned. Yet, good films like "Point Break" and "Passenger 57" can't even gross fifty million at the box office. These comedy films that should be considered classics "Hot Shots" and the first two "Naked Guns" didn't even gross a hundred million. Yet inferior films that I have mentioned above for some unknown reason gross such an undeseriving excess amount of money. All I know if people show up opening weekend in great droves should not bitch so much if the movie sucks, becuase like with "Pearl Harbor" you people are telling the studios it is o.k. to get away with crappy films. George Lucas in particular. Here is a suggestion you don't have to take average films you don't want it: If you people like myself want better movies, boycott them for now by the millions forcing studios to find and hire better screenwriters to make films better. As I pointed with Spielberg, even great directors like him are nothing without good scripts. After all a directors main job is bein gthe official last script supervisor on the film. I bet the number one reason that Polanski is a big time has been is becuase he can't get a good script to use for his film. His directing is fine, just doesn't know how to find a good script. Sadly ARnold Shwartzeneger is a has been too. He hasn't had a good film since "True Lies,"
despite acting his usual self in films. By these examples people you can see how important screenplay are to films. I myself wouldn't mind if ticket prices were raised to find better screenwriting. I wish movie studios would get their priorities strait with the screenplay being most important. If they can spend so much for big name actors (like twenty to twenty five million), directors, special effects people, I think they can afford to pay screenwriters more. I supported and understood why the screenwriters guild wanted more money for what they do last year when they attempted to strike. When the screenwriters contribute so greatly to the success to a film, talent being harder to come by, I think they shoud be paid more for the indispensible talent and service that they provide. It was because of a well written script I enjoted "Die Hard 2: Die HArder" depite there being odds of that terrorist threat working being quntitillion to one. Hope I haven't offended anyone by me going into clear detail why I didn't like these overated films. Remember I am nobody special. I am not even a paid movie critic. SO my opinions should not mean anything to you people. Also keep in mind I was not purposely trying to offend anyone by my bashing of these overated films of the past decade. If I did I am sorry. You can bash films I don't like and I won't care. To close this long post, Stefan's out.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.